Riḍā completes his claim that Jewish subjection followed sin, then presents the Jews of Medina as habitual treaty breakers who forced Muhammad to fight and expel them. He contrasts that account with a sweeping claim that later Muslim rule protected and treated יהודים YEHUDIM equally. These are Riḍā's religious and historical judgments, not facts established by this essay. His final paragraph moves from Jewish learning in al-Andalus to a claim that Jews helped bring down Catholic political power; that argument continues on p. 387.
His two Qur'anic phrases are identifiable. Qur'an 3:112 contains the words about humiliation except through a bond from God and people, but it does not itself define humiliation as loss of rule or the two bonds as Riḍā does. Qur'an 8:56 contains the phrase about breaking a covenant every time, but quoting it does not establish the conduct of every Jewish group in Medina.
The document usually called the Constitution of Medina supports the existence of a compact involving Muhammad's community and named Jewish groups, with clauses preserving their religion and assigning mutual duties. Modern scholarship treats its composition and the identity of its Jewish parties as debated. It supports the pact and religious-autonomy part of Riḍā's account, but not his compressed claim that the Jewish tribes repeatedly broke it and therefore forced all the later fighting and expulsions.
Focused studies sharpen those limits. A history of medieval Spain says Jews and Christians under Muslim rule could retain their religion and customs, but paid special taxes and faced political restrictions. Research on medieval Jewish philosophy describes major intellectual flourishing in an Arabic and Islamic setting. Research on Arabic-to-Hebrew translation confirms that Jewish scholars carried Arabic scientific and philosophical works, including Ibn Rushd's, into Hebrew study in western Europe. Together these sources support protection, participation, and intellectual transmission, but not equal legal status, unrestricted access to every school or mosque, collective revenge, or the claim that Jewish transmission brought down Catholic political power.
The coercion Riḍā names in Christian Spain has a documented core. Jews were expelled in 1492, Castilian Muslims were required to convert or emigrate in 1502, and the Moriscos were expelled in 1609-1610. Scholarship assigns these measures to royal policy and institutions including the Spanish Inquisition, which operated under royal control. This supports his references to killing, displacement, and coerced conversion while making his assignment of the whole process to the Catholic Church alone too simple.
The Torah contains a differentiated rule on interest. Deuteronomy 23:20-21 forbids taking interest from a brother and permits it from a foreigner. This gives a textual basis for Riḍā's reference to a rule that distinguishes insiders from outsiders. It does not authorize oppression, prove that Jews generally consumed other peoples' wealth, or establish how later Jewish law interpreted and applied the passage.
The parties and later conflicts in Medina cannot be compressed into one repeated breach by a single Jewish body. Research on the Constitution of Medina says the principal Jewish tribes are not named among its Jewish participants and may have been bound by separate agreements. Traditional accounts also distinguish the conflicts and their outcomes. This does not settle every disputed detail, but it makes Riḍā's formula that they broke their pact every time too broad.